Allahabad High Court

SUPRIYA PATHAKversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 108 are not made out and granted bail to the applicant.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Supriya Pathak, accused under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged abetment of suicide in a case arising from the death of her husband. The applicant argued that the death was due to antemortem hanging and that she had no role in instigating or aiding the suicide, citing lack of any positive act or intent. The State opposed bail, but could not demonstrate that the essential ingredients of the offence were satisfied or that the applicant posed a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. After reviewing the FIR and investigation material, the Court held that the allegations did not establish the offence and that the applicant, a first‑time offender, had been in custody for over a month with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the Court ordered her release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the facts alleged in the FIR satisfy the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (abetment of suicide).
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial, warranting denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
false implication
post mortem
trial delay
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33895 of 2026

Supriya Pathak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Shukla, Ayush Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Shanker Yadav

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav,
learned counsel for the informant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA for
the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2026, under Section 108 of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Bardah, District
Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the wife of the
deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the
post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem
hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and
the material collected during the course of investigation, the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not
made out. Mere allegation of harassment and alleged utterance of
words "go and die", in absence of any positive act of instigation,
intentional aid, on the part of the applicant, would not constitute the
offence of abetment of suicide. In support of his submissions, counsel for
the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017) decided on
03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024) decided on
18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 01.08.2026 having no criminal
history and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said
BAIL No. 33895 of 2026
2

liberty.
5. Learned AGA for the state and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the
aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations in the first information
report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the
essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
are not made out. There is no direct act attributable to the applicant that
could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the
commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a lady having no
criminal history and has remained confined for more than one and half
months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or
delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail.
7. Let the applicant, Supriya Pathak, involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject
to the conditions that she:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 23, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…